From[Bill Williams 26 April 2004 11:30 AM CST]
[From John Anderson (2004.04.26.0940)]
Anderson describes his original interest in PCT as a good way of
approaching questions concerning brain function. And, he expresses
a preference that CSGnet "get back to discussing PCT as a
science." I for one certainly wouldn't be opposed to CSGnet carrying
more content devoted to interpretation of brain functioning in terms
of a control theory analysis. There is, as I understand plenty of
bandwidth availible to comfortably do so. Anderson describes this
as his personal interest, I would think it is a subject of much more than
merely person interest. I would consider a persuasive treatment of
brain functioning from a control theory standpoint to be an important
contributor to many other areas of interest to people who are a part
of the CSGnet. Many of the clinical, social and economic applications
of control theory can benefit from the availiblity of an accurate
description of brain functioning as a control theory analysis.
So, I am not "in principle" entirely opposed to having the CSGnet get
back to doing control theory science. However, Anderson appears
to be going about this "gettting back to science" by suggesting that
there are categories of postings, and perhaps topics, that in his view
should not be carried on, on the CSGnet. Anderson is of this opinion
as a result of his perception that such posts impose a burden upon
him to expend his time to evalutate whether or not these posts are
worth his reading them. As it stands now, they only way Anderson
can determine whether a post is worth his reading it, is by reading it.
I think Anderson's problem is a genuine one-- basically it is an
information cost problem. Other people have recently perceived that
the CSGnet is not functiong as they would prefer. Various solutions
are emerging. In addition to the CSGnet there are now two additional
forums devoted to discussions of control theory, behavior, and whatnot.
One the ECACS forum controls membership, but allows anyone to
read the discussions. The other the Yahhoo site controls as I understand
it both membership and reading discussions is availible only to members.
For the time being I doubt that there is sufficient interest to support a
similiar site to accomdate Anderson's interest in brain functioning from
a control theory perspective. However, it might be possible to use the
thread or subject line in postings better. Now, on CSGnet there is little
coorelation between the thread or subject line in a post and the content
of the post. As an example the "Sequential PCT" subject header started
as a someone technical discussion of how time and causation enter into
control theory modeling. Over a short period of time, however, the
actual content drifted in direction which Anderson has little or no
interest.
And, so he bears an information cost as a result of a divergence between
the header and the actual content of discussion.
I doubt that Anderson or anyone else at the present time is going to
impose discipline upon CSGnet practices in this or any other respect.
But, those wishing to make use of the CSGnet for reporting upon and
discussing brain functioning issues from the standpoint of control theory
might identify their discussions by a distinctive subject caption. And
request that those posting under that caption confine their discussion to
the purposes that the subjectline has designated.
Bill Williams